IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFF41AE23F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6z0ggLx89kOL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A941AE17F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W81 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:55 -0800
X-TMN: [wG3meOB52UYvhsZOCoJZgg2ovy29Wo2i]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W81579B7136EF4609C40C2193EE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_fbb7a298-6ea9-4b81-bde3-4afc1e953572_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:54 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>, <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org>, <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2013 21:40:55.0285 (UTC) FILETIME=[847A8A50:01CEEC82]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:40:58 -0000

> > This is a legal and political question.
> 
> Exactly the kind of questions that the IETF does NOT handle.
 
[BA] Indeed.  Legal questions are handled in the courts, political questions are handled within legislatures/parliaments (or in the case of a monarchy/dictatorship by the dictator or monarch).  Last time I looked, the IETF was neither a court nor a legislative body (nor within the jurisdiction of a specific monarch or dictator). 
 
So I fail to see how the outcome of this proposed vote could be expected to convince someone who is concerned about legal/IPR issues that their concerns have been addressed.  Is legal counsel expected to view the outcome and say "I had concerns relating to the IPR/licensing risks of <insert codec here> but now that the IETF RTCWEB WG has concluded its voting process, I realize that my concerns were merely the invention of an over-active legal mind!" 

> The rules that have been presented basically sound like: "here are the people that we think will produce the result we are looking for"
 
[BA] I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that such a thing could be going on here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email